|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:42 am
So I posed a question to this other guild I belong to. I wasn't singling anyone out, I wasn't making nasty comments about anyone's beliefs. It was a, "What do you believe about this subject?" question, and I got this response from a member that, to me, was pretty rude. I felt like I was basically being talked down to, which this particular member ALWAYS does any time I say anything. Now, the group boasts specifically about no one there telling anyone else that they're wrong about their beliefs, but this is a regular occurrence. It's why I'm not regularly active there. Anyway, here's the question I asked: Quote: I know a lot of Pagans/Witches who will loudly proclaim "My body is a temple!" to anyone who looks like they might need to hear it, and use this as their explanation for why they don't smoke or drink, do drugs, etc. But I noticed that a lot of the people who make this claim think nothing of consuming junk food, items that're high in preservatives and artificial ingredients, which have no nutritional value what-so-ever. Some of them are morbidly overweight, to boot. On the flip side, I've seen people from this group who eat nothing but organic food - whether they're vegetarian or not - and avoid the artificial stuff like the plague. Do you treat your body like a temple and make sure that most of what you do to it is clean and healthy, including food and exercise? Or do you believe that as long as you aren't doing anything outright harmful (mutilation, hard drugs, alcoholism), then you're doing enough for yourself? Or do you believe something else entirely? Explain. Some things to note: 1) "Hard Drugs" refers to man-made substances like methamphetamines, not mild herbal blends used for ceremony. 2) Alcoholism is not "the occasional drink for ritual/offering purposes," but an addiction to alcohol that eventually leads to liver damage. Here's what that person said in response to my post: Quote: Drugs, alcohol and forms of "mutliation" like whipping or cutting are spiritual tools. They can help induce trance, act as a form of "purification", help connect with deity, as ritual offerings, or as an aid to self-knowledge. How would a teetotaller really get along as an Asatruar? or a Maenad? A temple to my gods requires alcohol and good food. And by good, I mean it doesn't matter if it's healthy so long as it's delicious. My temple values and allows practices like self-injury, fasting, or the taking of particular drugs as aids to spiritual practice. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like she's pretty much saying, "And you should already know this, stupid!"
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:02 pm
It's difficult to convey emotion over the internet; that post can be interpreted in a few different tones, so unless you get clarification of the intent it's rather hard to know.
(Warning: Strong opinion follows)
That said, I have noticed that certain groups of people are extremely liable to be immensely impressed with themselves. That's a very, very large percentage of the reason I got away from 'Wicca'/general neopaganism along those lines - consistently, the covens I'd meet either IRL or online were full of far more than their natural share of the most pompous, pretentious self-impressed blowhards who were absolutely convinced that they were correct about anything and everything and that the rest of the world needed Educating capital E, preferably in the most condescending manner possible. This was particularly choice when the self-styled HPS had been involved in the practice for less than, say, five years, or had read only Llwellyn books on the subject but considered herself an Authority capital A nonetheless. (I acknowledge we all go through the stage of not knowing to question the truth of anything that appears printed - if it's in a BOOK, it's Official and True, amirite? - that many of us, fortunately, outgrow sooner or later.)
In before cries of 'But not all wiccans/neopagans are like that!' I know they're not. I'm not sayiing -all- individuals are like that - just the overall population of several covens and dozens of internet groups I happened across in the about 10 years I considered myself Pagan were, a large enough sample size over a long enough span of time to make me want to wash my hands forever of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:01 pm
Sounds to me like the replier is used to defending those things as part of her practice, and is in fact so used to it that she missed your question entirely. Or maybe she tried to answer it, but her phrasing sucks. Not knowing the person, I cannot really judge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:19 pm
Doesn't seem condescending to me really. Just seems like they're explaining that none of that applies to their path or their idea of what a temple should be like.
They might just have been mildly offended at your assumption that everyone thought like that when it came to "body as temple" stuff. Seems like something to ask that person about and work out between you two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:18 pm
Mirenithil That said, I have noticed that certain groups of people are extremely liable to be immensely impressed with themselves. That's a very, very large percentage of the reason I got away from 'Wicca'/general neopaganism along those lines - consistently, the covens I'd meet either IRL or online were full of far more than their natural share of the most pompous, pretentious self-impressed blowhards who were absolutely convinced that they were correct about anything and everything and that the rest of the world needed Educating capital E, preferably in the most condescending manner possible. This was particularly choice when the self-styled HPS had been involved in the practice for less than, say, five years, or had read only Llwellyn books on the subject but considered herself an Authority capital A nonetheless. (I acknowledge we all go through the stage of not knowing to question the truth of anything that appears printed - if it's in a BOOK, it's Official and True, amirite? - that many of us, fortunately, outgrow sooner or later.) In before cries of 'But not all wiccans/neopagans are like that!' I know they're not. I'm not sayiing -all- individuals are like that - just the overall population of several covens and dozens of internet groups I happened across in the about 10 years I considered myself Pagan were, a large enough sample size over a long enough span of time to make me want to wash my hands forever of it. I agree with you there. This is largely why I practice alone. There are so many different points of view on Paganism and Wicca that it's rare if two strangers agree wholeheartedly on one subject. I suppose in this case, I am predisposed to feeling insulted by whatever comes out of this particular member's "mouth," because she has insulted me on numerous occasions, and informed everyone that MY beliefs were incorrect, because thus-and-such a book says so, or because her friend so-and-so (which she places on a pedestal) says so... It's why I posted the response here. I wanted to see if I was just prepared to see a rude comment, and so ended up seeing one. I suppose this response CAN be taken several different ways. I just feel that there are more polite/neutral ways of expressing one's opinions in text format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:17 pm
to me it sounds like the person in question replied in a manner that indirectly answered your question. i think she implied that her practices to worship her temple are different than others practices, because worshiping your temple can be implemented whichever way the person wants to, as in she doesn't care if it's harmful so long as it's indulgent, while someone else would eat healthy food.
that's how i'd interpret it anyway.
Mirenithil,
>.> if you really wanted to make her look silly you could state plainly that paganism/whatever is based simply on your body is a temple and you're your own god or whatever since that seems to be the main point you're trying to get across.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:04 pm
To be fair, I think her response could be taken in several ways, and so could your question. From what you've posted here, I do gather that nothing you wrote was meant to challenge anyone to put the Sloppy Seven-Incher down and step away from the fries, but anyone with an ax to grind could interpret your message that way. Similarly, not knowing the tone of her usual posts, I'm not seeing anything overtly nasty or condescending in her response - just a widely different view of the issue at hand.
Now, as for my view of the issue you brought up - because it wouldn't be any fun to just dissect hypothetical intentions in a response - I don't particularly consider my body a temple, but I do regard everything I put into it as a medicine of sorts, and take care not to put in too much that goes against what I need - and hold recreational use of any substance as "probably a bad idea sooner or later". My big weakness is chocolate-covered pretzels. heart Knowing what I do about the exponential increase in wheat sensitivity over the past 50 years, I'm gradually switching to more rice-based cuisine, but I suspect those darn pretzels will never be fully eradicated. Well, until my liver shuts down, anyway...
My approach was probably largely shaped by my acupuncture training, a fair amount of which involves assessing a patient's diet and water intake, as well as sleep habits and addictions, and creating a sort of map to wellness depending on what's bothering the patient and which habits exacerbate the problem. I read a fair amount of Bob Flaws, and from there learned how to make some darn good jook, according to extended family (who wouldn't normally touch something like that). In fact, since my allergy diagnosis, food has become more or less my hobby. It's amazing the number of sensitivities I've learned to work around! (And no, not all mine - I'm not a hypochondriac.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:33 pm
The first impressions I've gotten from what's be posted here, and without a name I can say I'm probably not particularly familiar with either of you, it seemed to me that the response you got was something on the condescending end of the spectrum. But that's the first impression I've gotten.
I'm not sure how validating you might find this thread, but I hope things do work out for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:42 am
I don't think it sounds condescending as it sounds incredibly defensive. I bet this person has heard the "body is a temple" speech many times in a way that denounces and almost demonizes their set of beliefs. And that's understandable. A lot of people who spout the message are almost militantly vegan/vegetarian, or are addicted to exercise, or otherwise kind of health nutty. And a lot of them rag on the rest of us for all the "toxins" we put into our bodies.
It appears she may have read your question as a similar tone, and it does seem a bit loaded after a couple reads. It's easy to see how it becomes an either/or question, or how you see some things as harmful (body modification/mutilation) while others see them as deeply spiritual (and they do).
All in all, I think your question could have been worded a bit better, and she could have taken more time to read it and respond in a more neutral, discussion-worthy tone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
